Football Transfers Thread

[MasterBlaster76]

Manchester United are bracing themselves for a new supporter backlash after their latest accounts revealed they lost ?71million to financial obligations imposed by owners the Glazers over the last nine months.

That's all I've got to say. Without the Glazers, would we have lost that money? No. Would we still be turning over a huge amount from merchandising and club success? Yes.

You can't just blame Sir Alex for the Champions League - the team just did not turn up in too many games.

 

[Anish.]

Bebe thinks he can shoot the ball into the top right corner but ends up giving a goal kick maybe a loan or the same offer they did to bojan krick

 

[MasterBlaster76]

I haven't got the first idea what Bebe was thinking he could do, but it didn't have much to do with anything approaching a decent cross.

As to the Glazers not being to blame, then who is? Sir Alex? The players? They're the guys who've been out there bringing in trophy after trophy, much like they were doing before the Glazers arrived. Man Utd were in a better situation before the Glazers arrived, that's an irrefutable fact.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

I haven't got the first idea what Bebe was thinking he could do, but it didn't have much to do with anything approaching a decent cross.

As to the Glazers not being to blame, then who is? Sir Alex? The players? They're the guys who've been out there bringing in trophy after trophy, much like they were doing before the Glazers arrived. Man Utd were in a better situation before the Glazers arrived, that's an irrefutable fact.

to blame for what, exactly?

can't win every competition.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

The ?500m+ debt - that's what. It can't just be brushed under the carpet.

 

[puddleduck]

to blame for what, exactly?

can't win every competition.

This. You can blame the fact Man City were better than you this season. That you spent all your money bringing in potential players. That you didn't strengthen your central midfielders except by bringing back a guy who is good enough to get you a top 4 spot, but not to inspire a league title or champions league.

Stop assuming that Man U have some god given right to win everything.

Man U still buy players, they still spend more money than most clubs. Of course they don't spend as much as City, but Man U are reigning champions in how many of the last few seasons? Champions League runners up the year before? Are they then supposed to spend more than a team who have further to travel?

Everyone knew last year Man U were missing a central midfield that was good enough to win everything, so Scholes retired... what then happened? They didn't replace him, and instead brought him back

----------

Also Man U being in a much better position, was down to the fact that there were less clubs with money to challenge you. There's no real point arguing with you to be honest, you're so blinded by Man U that you fail to see that football is bigger than one club. Must be tough having to accept that maybe Man U could do a Liverpool, and when City have won their 5th title in 8 years you'll be referring to history instead of the present and future

 

[MasterBlaster76]

Cost of Glazers' takeover at Manchester United reaches ?500m | David Conn | Football | guardian.co.uk

Specifically:

There are a few contrary voices in support of the Glazers' record, so the tedious argument does have to be joined with the fact that United have continued to be successful under their rule, winning four Premier League titles since 2005 and one Champions League, in 2008. The three most straightforward answers to that are: United, who were hugely rich, had no debt, a great manager and squad of top players when the Glazers arrived, might have been even more successful, perhaps dominated in Europe as well as the Premier League, had ?500m dead money not gone to bankers since.

Secondly, it is arguable that the Glazers' shrewdest move has been effectively to leave Old Trafford well alone, knowing that in Sir Alex Ferguson and David Gill, they had the partnership to maintain success, even given so much less money to play with.

Third, give the Glazers as much credit as you like, decide the playing success really is somehow all due to their absentee and debt-laden ownership, yet still no argument can be advanced for how leaking half a billion pounds out of the club, still to barely chip into the originally imposed debt, has been good for United.

And for the last time, it's not about any 'God given right to win things'. It's about a club being taken from a great financial situation into a bad one! I accept that occasionally we'll not win the league - it happened a few times with Arsenal, with Chelsea and now with Man City. It even happened with Blackburn for God's sake!

Also Man U being in a much better position, was down to the fact that there were less clubs with money to challenge you. There's no real point arguing with you to be honest, you're so blinded by Man U that you fail to see that football is bigger than one club. Must be tough having to accept that maybe Man U could do a Liverpool, and when City have won their 5th title in 8 years you'll be referring to history instead of the present and future

Hilarious. I'd be more worried about your own club when Bale and Modric leave. Of course, it's natural everyone thinks it's the end of the Utd empire; more or less the same thing happened after Chelsea's shortlived dominance. There were even some people thinking that Arsenal would be the next big thing after their Invincibles year. Didn't quite go down like that though.

No - Man Utd being in a better position was because we hadn't just had ?500m sucked out of us. Five. Hundred. Million. Pounds.

Everyone knew last year Man U were missing a central midfield that was good enough to win everything, so Scholes retired... what then happened? They didn't replace him, and instead brought him back

Cleverley was looking every inch the midfielder we needed, then he got injured. Remember? And before anyone starts saying he's too young, I'd like to remind you of 1995/1996 and what a certain Mr Hansen spouted on MoTD - I'm sure you remember.

 

[puddleduck]

How are you in a bad financial situation? You spend money every summer. Essentially a lot of people who don't have even the foggiest about economics look at big numbers and decide they understand it.

Yes I am worried, because I'm pragmatic. I've said for the last few years that when we don't reach champs league we'll be buggered because everyone will leave and we won't be able to replace them unless we get lucky and again bring in those mid-range risk players like a Modric or Bale who do turn out to be class. We're quite litereally buggered, and it's actually quite depressing that a club who made a concerted approach to breach the top 4 in the correct way, by bringing in players, spending within their own financial means and looking at steady progress will actually now be dismantled because the knee-jerk short termism Chelsea have gotten lucky and sneaked a Champs League win.

Whatever anyone says about the Champs League final, football lost in many ways. It lost because a team with no intention of attacking won and it lost because again the top 4 is reestablished and the monopoly will continue.

I'd be worried about Arsenal actually, as long as Wenger stays they are now reaching the point they can actually start spending relatively heavily from within a position of sustained profit.

This is something I believe the Glazers are aiming. By increasing profits, the debt will eventually be irrelevant.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

Anyway, I don't see this as an argument - we haven't started throwing childish names at each other (unlike some... ). It's more of a (very) heated debate.

 

[puddleduck]

Again, you've mentioned Cleverly. So you think the Glazers are hampering you by not allowing big signings, yet you always mention injuries and bad luck as being what cost United. Which is it? Have United been unlucky and therefore really the Glazers haven't effected United negatively at all. Or is it the Glazers fault, and really the team isn't good enough?

----------

Anyway, I don't see this as an argument - we haven't started throwing childish names at each other (unlike some... ). It's more of a (very) heated debate.

yeah fair point, I don't bother debating with those people

 

[MasterBlaster76]

I was thinking of the future more to be honest - City are going to spend trillions again this summer even though they don't need to, and the only way to keep pace of them is to land big signings. If we land a couple of big fish this summer, I'll lay off the Glazers - but I mean proper big names. I mean, we never really replaced Ronaldo did we? And it doesn't get much bigger than him.

I don't know. You're pissed because of what happened last night, I'm pissed because we missed out to our biggest rivals by two sodding minutes... perhaps we should just recharge our batteries in preparation for the England fun and games to come.

 

[puddleduck]

Since you'll probably steal our best midfielder and already stole our best striker, I don't really have much sympathy for United. They basically lay down 30-50m every summer for the last decade. Of course Man City have to spend big to remove that gap, and then since they've managed it so quickly, now try and increase it.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

Since you'll probably steal our best midfielder and already stole our best striker, I don't really have much sympathy for United. They basically lay down 30-50m every summer for the last decade. Of course Man City have to spend big to remove that gap, and then since they've managed it so quickly, now try and increase it.

You don't think Modric will end up at Chelsea?

I suppose it depends on if he wants to stay in London or not. Of course, he could always end up somewhere very close to Old Trafford.

Edit: We didn't really steal him; what was it: ?30m? Money that we probably should've used to hold onto Tevez to be honest; not that Dimitar was a bad player for Utd - he didn't ever really click somehow - even though he had one great season. I'm sure he'll be off this summer, I would if I was him as it's patently clear he's not in Sir Alex's plans.

 

[puddleduck]

To say he didn't click is a bit harsh, the guy was top scorer in the league and almost single handedly won you points when Rooney decided to be a twunt. Then he was dropped and ditched by Ferguson.

You're right you didn't steal him, 30M lot of money that

He could go to Chelsea, but Man U would be a better fit for him since they play with natural wingers and width. He's at his best feeding balls into the wide areas.

 

[BKB1991]

I am really disappointed with Fergusons dealing of Berbatov. Should have given him more chances this season considering he did score goals when he got games.

On the Glazer topic, I am not too well aware of the facts, but the way I see it, it hasnt limited our transfer power. When Ferguson wants a player bad he gets him. We spend 50M last season if I am not mistaken, and am expecting quite a bit to be spend this year. Its just that now we have more competition within the City for trophies and signings. But if any footballer is caught between United or City I think he will prefer the former.